Jay-Z Scores 11th No. 1 Album, Sells 475,700 Discs in Debut Week

[ikke]

what other albums of jay-z was number 1.

See for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay-Z_discography

I only counted 9 number 1 albums. When you release an album every 15 months for the last 14 years it's not that hard to get a lot of number 1 albums. I bet with all his 9 or 11 #1 albums he has about 15 weeks at number 1. Going #1 isn't what it used to be. In the old days you were given a small realase slwly the across the country and only went number #1 if the album was deemed good enough by the public to go #1 in it's 5th or 6th week, many times way later, and then it stayed #1 for a bit and in the top 5 for a long time.

In 1984, 5 albums went #1; Thriller, Footloose, Sports, Born in the USA, and Purle Rain. And 4 of those 5 spent at least an entire month at #1 and all of them stayed in the top 10 for over a year and went diamond. In 2009, so far, there are almost 30 #1 albums and every a few weeks 90% of them leave the top 20. Going number one these days just means you were released on a slow week and you had all of your promotion focused on first week sales.

2 colaboration albums went to 1 as well.

It's impossible to compare 1984 with 2009...
We can get the music for free now and that isn't counted by soundscan.
 and if they could count that albums would actually do higher numbers because people don't have to pay and get into more artist then they could 1984

EDIT: Raekwon moved good numbers, a bit less then fabo's album iirc and he's mainstream as fuck

[Chamillitary Click]

^i wonder what Wayne would have done if C3 wasn't downloaded.

[Jimmy H.]

I only counted 9 number 1 albums. When you release an album every 15 months for the last 14 years it's not that hard to get a lot of number 1 albums. I bet with all his 9 or 11 #1 albums he has about 15 weeks at number 1. Going #1 isn't what it used to be. In the old days you were given a small realase slwly the across the country and only went number #1 if the album was deemed good enough by the public to go #1 in it's 5th or 6th week, many times way later, and then it stayed #1 for a bit and in the top 5 for a long time.

But how many artists have the kind of work ethic and mainstream popularity to put out albums every 15 months? I'll admit that Jay's shit ain't always my cup of tea and he ain't in my top 5 but the guy knows how to keep himself relevant. You don't have artists constinently dropping #1 albums (whether it's 5, 7, 9, 11) without there being something special about how the public reacts to them. I mean, the guy was name-checked by the fucking President as one of his favorite artists. That's pretty fucking big. That doesn't mean he's the best rapper alive but it says a lot about his popularity.

[D-Nice]

wooow, great shit for jigga tho album wasnt great as i expected, some tracks are for skipping really.

Im really happy for Raekwon dude did 70 k, thats great today!



ps. Slaughterhouse sold 35k since the album release.

great numbers for Jay indeed.

i remember all the people talking about how Wu is SO relevant & Slaughterhouse is not, but i think Jay sets the standard in that conversation of was "relevant" means.

funny, I remember people saying that Slaughterhouse was relevant and no one buys Wu anymore. Weren't you the one comparing Padded Room sales to Chamber Music?

lol was not me.

i probably said Slaughterhouse is more relevant today at some point.

but like said, Jay-Z showed what kind of numbers you have to do to be "relevant".

but i'll also say, note how this doesn't relate to music; Slaughterhouse, Joe Budden & Raekwon have put out better albums this year, but Jay gets the sales; solid album, but not as good as the names i just mentioned.

But it has always been like that with Jay. That is what got Nas so infuriated with Angie Martinez but she made a good point. Jay could drop a album every time Nas would and 9 times out of 10 he would outsell him. Not to say Nas is not better or worse, but Jay has a style and his music is more appealing to a wider range of people. Jay can do club bangers, Nas ehh not so much. Those 3 artists I could never see selling that many albums 1st week.

[dubsmith_nz]

I only counted 9 number 1 albums. When you release an album every 15 months for the last 14 years it's not that hard to get a lot of number 1 albums. I bet with all his 9 or 11 #1 albums he has about 15 weeks at number 1. Going #1 isn't what it used to be. In the old days you were given a small realase slwly the across the country and only went number #1 if the album was deemed good enough by the public to go #1 in it's 5th or 6th week, many times way later, and then it stayed #1 for a bit and in the top 5 for a long time.

But how many artists have the kind of work ethic and mainstream popularity to put out albums every 15 months? I'll admit that Jay's shit ain't always my cup of tea and he ain't in my top 5 but the guy knows how to keep himself relevant. You don't have artists constinently dropping #1 albums (whether it's 5, 7, 9, 11) without there being something special about how the public reacts to them. I mean, the guy was name-checked by the fucking President as one of his favorite artists. That's pretty fucking big. That doesn't mean he's the best rapper alive but it says a lot about his popularity.

Jay is a contender for GOAT for the simple fact he has managed to stay relevant and on top of the game for so long, and he's got atleast 3 classics under his belt. You can't knock Jay's hustle

[wcsoldier]

Yeah don't realy understand why people keep saying Jay buys his own albums. Dude knows how to promote his album and he always presents a full body of work, not just a single. 11th number one album, damn. And the album has grown on me a lot.

Didn't Kingdome Come see a 70% sth drop in its second week ? this kind of thing will always start rumors and imply suspicion ... I wouldnt be surprised if BP III second week sales are between 100-110k at best ... big stars 1st week sales are often great but then it depends on the quality of the album ... Jay 2 latest albums sales were nothing great after 1st week , same thing for Relapse ... why ? because they were weak efforts

[Episcop Cruel Cvrle]

Yeah don't realy understand why people keep saying Jay buys his own albums. Dude knows how to promote his album and he always presents a full body of work, not just a single. 11th number one album, damn. And the album has grown on me a lot.

Didn't Kingdome Come see a 70% sth drop in its second week ? this kind of thing will always start rumors and imply suspicion ... I wouldnt be surprised if BP III second week sales are between 100-110k at best ... big stars 1st week sales are often great but then it depends on the quality of the album ... Jay 2 latest albums sales were nothing great after 1st week , same thing for Relapse ... why ? because they were weak efforts

Some people will not like what im going to say now, but Relapse shit all over BP3. IMO.

[MontrealCity's Most]

Good record, Jiggas that dude

[Shallow]

^^ But it means that he's managed to maintain some level of relevance. Most artists after 5 albums would've lost the publics attention. I have to give props to him to managing to stay selling records even if I don't like his new album.

I'm not saying he's not relevant, or that he isn't good. I'm saying comparing his 9 or 11 to Madonna's 6 or whatever isn't even close. I'm saying that doing it back then was harder.

It's impossible to compare 1984 with 2009...
We can get the music for free now and that isn't counted by soundscan.
 and if they could count that albums would actually do higher numbers because people don't have to pay and get into more artist then they could 1984

EDIT: Raekwon moved good numbers, a bit less then fabo's album iirc and he's mainstream as fuck

Music was free for years. Forget dubbing your friends record or tape. FM radio for years was an album oriented frequency. DJs would often play entire album sides, and sometimes both sides. It was very easy to hear plenty of different kinds of music and artists, and with 5 dollar tickets it was easy to see them live too.

You reject my argument that strong first week promotion is the reason why albums, and films these days too, do much bigger numbers and you expect me to buy into the idea that because I can access a lot of music on the web I find more artists and don't want to buy established acts as much.

It's much simpler than you're making it out to be. Somewhere along the line the music and film industry figured out a way to create hype and they use the hype to spark interest. If they knew how to do it right in 1984 they would have done it. It simply took longer to master the science of it all.

My point is simple; it's easier to have a #1 album because of this debut oriented marketing and in 20 years the Beatles 17 #1s or whatever they had will be matched and surpassed by a bunch of artists, but none of those artists will sell that much in the long run or be at #1 for more than one or two weeks at a time.

But how many artists have the kind of work ethic and mainstream popularity to put out albums every 15 months? I'll admit that Jay's shit ain't always my cup of tea and he ain't in my top 5 but the guy knows how to keep himself relevant. You don't have artists constinently dropping #1 albums (whether it's 5, 7, 9, 11) without there being something special about how the public reacts to them. I mean, the guy was name-checked by the fucking President as one of his favorite artists. That's pretty fucking big. That doesn't mean he's the best rapper alive but it says a lot about his popularity.

Plenty of artists have that kind of work ethic. They just refuse to release shitty material. Jay wanted 5 or 6 mediocre albums instead of 2 classics. So he released a bunch of tracks that would have been filler if he paced himself.

Like I said it doesn't mean I think he sucks or that he isn't relevant. It means he'd never go #1 all these times if albums were released market to market first then released massively.



My favourite artist is Bruce Springsteen. I love his old stuff and really dig his new stuff too. But he's hardly still relevant in the modern music scene or world. He got the Superbowl and all the Obama stuff because a lot of hard core Springsteen fans happen to be people in positions of power and keep begging him to come and do this and that just to show him off and see him themselves. Everytime he releases an album it goes #1 the first week and by week 5 it's barely in the top 50. He's got hundreds to thousands of tracks at home and he could package them into albums every 6 months and make sure they debut on slow weeks and end up with 2 #1 albums a year every year until his hardcore base all dies 25 years from now. But it wouldn't mean shit when compared to his first 3 #1 albums or the Beatles first 5.

The Jonas brothers could do the exact same thing over the next two or three years and end up with 15 #1 albums if the positioning was right. Def Leppard's Pyromania sold 6 million copies in just over 1 year and ended up going diamond but it was never #1. Because it was released during the Thriller craze. That one album sold almost as much as all of Jay Z's 11 albums. You want a modern example? Try Human Clay by Creed. It was released in September 99 (Napster was already big by then), spent two weeks at #1 in mid october and then never again, but the fucking thing was diamond by 2001.

People can blame whatever they want but if enough people like enough of the songs enough people will buy the album to make it go diamond, or near it anyway. If Jay can't get those numbers it's because the music isn't there.

[herpes]

While some of what you say is a valid argument but c'mon shallow are you really trying to compare dubbing a tape to the way we bootleg now a days, c'mon really.  You don't even have to leave you house anymore for any aspect.  Back in the day you would have to at least run to the store and buy tapes.  You would have to wait for the radio DJ to play the music.  Now you get the music when you want and throw it on your mp3 player.  You don't even need cd's anymore.  Really you need to dead that argument because it hurts your overall argument much more than it helps.

[Shallow]

While some of what you say is a valid argument but c'mon shallow are you really trying to compare dubbing a tape to the way we bootleg now a days, c'mon really.  You don't even have to leave you house anymore for any aspect.  Back in the day you would have to at least run to the store and buy tapes.  You would have to wait for the radio DJ to play the music.  Now you get the music when you want and throw it on your mp3 player.  You don't even need cd's anymore.  Really you need to dead that argument because it hurts your overall argument much more than it helps.

I've always argued that exposure from free internet access helps at least as much as it hurts, but this isn't even the issue. A #1 album is a #1 album. The internet affects the rest of the 199 albums on the Top 200 also. To argue that because we can get more music faster is the reason why we don't buy as much of the big name stars is absurd to me.


My other argument on going diamond is simple; plenty of artists have done it or come close. Shaniah Twain has three straight diamond albums and the third one was after the internet explosion. If the appeal is in enough of the songs the album will sell. All you need is two or three big hits and you have a chance. That's why Vol. 2 went 5 platinum when Jay Z was a nobody in the public eye and all of his other "huge" albums can barely go two platinum since being the giant star that he is. The appeal is not in the music. Take away the internet completely and Jay Z doesn't sell one more record. He may even sell less because most of his popularity comes from the internet.

Multiple copies purchased by teenage girls is what makes albums go diamond. You could hand out the music for free door to door and that won't change.

[Triple OG Rapsodie]

To argue that because we can get more music faster is the reason why we don't buy as much of the big name stars is absurd to me.

Its not absurd to me. I listen to way more music now then I did back in the 90s and early 00s. And back then I bought albums before I had heard them entirely, based on how many radio singles I liked. Now I limit my purchases to albums I really really like and have heard all the way through.

We used to be limited to what music we were exposed to by the radio. They played certain singles for several weeks in a row, or months. If they played enough songs on an album that I liked, I would buy the album. Now I listen to several albums a day and honestly I can't afford to buy them all. I can definitely see an argument there. I probably would have bought The Blueprint 3 if it were 5 years ago.

[Shallow]

To argue that because we can get more music faster is the reason why we don't buy as much of the big name stars is absurd to me.

Its not absurd to me. I listen to way more music now then I did back in the 90s and early 00s. And back then I bought albums before I had heard them entirely, based on how many radio singles I liked. Now I limit my purchases to albums I really really like and have heard all the way through.

We used to be limited to what music we were exposed to by the radio. They played certain singles for several weeks in a row, or months. If they played enough songs on an album that I liked, I would buy the album. Now I listen to several albums a day and honestly I can't afford to buy them all. I can definitely see an argument there. I probably would have bought The Blueprint 3 if it were 5 years ago.

I think the real problem is how young you guys were before the internet era. Everybody I knew that loved hip hop had every rap album that came out by the major stars. I have every major West Coast release and some I have multiple copies. But I only purchased Doggystyle, Chronic, Regulate, Dogg Food and All Eyes on Me. Yeah they were shitty audio casette quality but we listened to them using shitty casette players on the street corner. Trust me, on those thngs there is no difference between CD and dubbed tape. When burners came out it was a lot easier. You know what's as good as the internet to most teenage music fans? The school hallways. All it took was 1 guy to have the real album in 1995 and everyone that wanted that album had it by the end of the week. And if you lived in a ghetto it was a lot easier.

Why would I buy an album when I have and exact CD replica of it? Because it's good enough to buy.

If Blueprint 3 was released 5 years ago you "probably" would have bought. What if it was released tomorrow and it was better than Blueprint 1?

[Triple OG Rapsodie]

To argue that because we can get more music faster is the reason why we don't buy as much of the big name stars is absurd to me.

Its not absurd to me. I listen to way more music now then I did back in the 90s and early 00s. And back then I bought albums before I had heard them entirely, based on how many radio singles I liked. Now I limit my purchases to albums I really really like and have heard all the way through.

We used to be limited to what music we were exposed to by the radio. They played certain singles for several weeks in a row, or months. If they played enough songs on an album that I liked, I would buy the album. Now I listen to several albums a day and honestly I can't afford to buy them all. I can definitely see an argument there. I probably would have bought The Blueprint 3 if it were 5 years ago.

I think the real problem is how young you guys were before the internet era. Everybody I knew that loved hip hop had every rap album that came out by the major stars. I have every major West Coast release and some I have multiple copies. But I only purchased Doggystyle, Chronic, Regulate, Dogg Food and All Eyes on Me. Yeah they were shitty audio casette quality but we listened to them using shitty casette players on the street corner. Trust me, on those thngs there is no difference between CD and dubbed tape. When burners came out it was a lot easier. You know what's as good as the internet to most teenage music fans? The school hallways. All it took was 1 guy to have the real album in 1995 and everyone that wanted that album had it by the end of the week. And if you lived in a ghetto it was a lot easier.

Why would I buy an album when I have and exact CD replica of it? Because it's good enough to buy.

If Blueprint 3 was released 5 years ago you "probably" would have bought. What if it was released tomorrow and it was better than Blueprint 1?

There ya go right there. Like you say, everyone was buying every major release. People were buying everything during the 90s, regardless of its quality. Everyone on here tends to overrate the 90s like everything that came out then was golden...anything with the G-Funk label on it was guaranteed to go at least gold. In today's environment these same albums wouldn't sell. I think anyone can see that this is true.

From what you've said so far, your opinion seems to be that quality will make the album sell more. But this isn't true, because dope albums come out every year that sell terribly. Especially in hip hop, most of the quality music isn't found on the charts.

You talk about listening to cassettes on the street corners and sharing music, which brings up a good point. Back then everyone was listening to the same shit, bumping the same albums, so everyone liked the same shit and everyone knew what to cop. Music has become a lot more individual since then with the internet, mp3 players, etc. Most of the shit I listen to now, my friends haven't even heard of. I still take recommendations from them, but most of the music I listen to I find on my own. But maybe that's just me because I listen to a lot of indie stuff.

[Jimmy H.]

Plenty of artists have that kind of work ethic. They just refuse to release shitty material. Jay wanted 5 or 6 mediocre albums instead of 2 classics. So he released a bunch of tracks that would have been filler if he paced himself.

Like I said it doesn't mean I think he sucks or that he isn't relevant. It means he'd never go #1 all these times if albums were released market to market first then released massively.



My favourite artist is Bruce Springsteen. I love his old stuff and really dig his new stuff too. But he's hardly still relevant in the modern music scene or world. He got the Superbowl and all the Obama stuff because a lot of hard core Springsteen fans happen to be people in positions of power and keep begging him to come and do this and that just to show him off and see him themselves. Everytime he releases an album it goes #1 the first week and by week 5 it's barely in the top 50. He's got hundreds to thousands of tracks at home and he could package them into albums every 6 months and make sure they debut on slow weeks and end up with 2 #1 albums a year every year until his hardcore base all dies 25 years from now. But it wouldn't mean shit when compared to his first 3 #1 albums or the Beatles first 5.

The Jonas brothers could do the exact same thing over the next two or three years and end up with 15 #1 albums if the positioning was right. Def Leppard's Pyromania sold 6 million copies in just over 1 year and ended up going diamond but it was never #1. Because it was released during the Thriller craze. That one album sold almost as much as all of Jay Z's 11 albums. You want a modern example? Try Human Clay by Creed. It was released in September 99 (Napster was already big by then), spent two weeks at #1 in mid october and then never again, but the fucking thing was diamond by 2001.

People can blame whatever they want but if enough people like enough of the songs enough people will buy the album to make it go diamond, or near it anyway. If Jay can't get those numbers it's because the music isn't there.

  But Jay really know how to push an album. The records themselves may not be the greatest things out there but he knows how to sell them as that. He'll do the "Unplugged" or "VH1 Storytellers". Get the movie tie-in with "American Gangster". You look at "The Black Album" and it was like he turned it into some monumental record. He did the whole "99 Problems" video and took something like that whole shooting thing and sold it up when really it wasn't that big. But he made it seem like an event. He had the whole "Fade To Black" movie. He did a lot of shit to keep his name relevant. And I don't think just anybody could do it or more people would.

I don't buy your Jonas Brothers comment either. There isn't a chance they could squeeze out 15 #1 albums in three years. Even if they had the work ethic to churn out that much product, the public would grow tired of it after about five at most. The interest will not be there in a couple years. It's too many new, young stars to fill the void when they all turn 20. Ask Hanson. You might get that break-out solo act like a Justin Timberlake or Beyonce but even then, that many #1 albums is not a simple feat. And these are more mainstream pop artists. Jay-Z is a rapper who releases content that is geared toward a considerably more mature audience.